Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[Herbivore 1,142]

25 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Sorry, but in the ACTUAL context that it happened, involving the Ukraine parliament, our state dept, other countries, IMF and so-on, it is not an impeachable offense no matter who said it.   It's only impeachable when you make up a false narrative that it was said to stop an investigation into the VP's son---which is  intellectually dishonest.

yep

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Trump and his rabid allies in the house are only coming up with these gripes,  conspiracy theories, and misinformation vis a vis the rules/process because they know Trump has no actual defense as to the substantive allegations. He did it.

Now some are trying to fall back to well it’s not impeachable. They’re sort of distorting what happened as the Trump campaign doing opposition research. That’s all. What’s the big deal? People do it all the time. Sure it’s a little icky but that’s politics.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES using his office and official powers to withhold MILITARY AID, which aid had been deemed proper in light of the United States NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS in assisting the Ukraine in fighting against an attempted (and partially successful!) military takeover by RUSSIA, to EXTORT a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT into investigating a political rival. (Among other methods of extortion, such as official recognition of the Ukraine’s new leader by the  president of the United States).

If that’s not impeachable then fock it, let’s just take that clause right out of the Constitution.

[iam90sbaby 2,621]

7 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Trump and his rabid allies in the house are only coming up with these gripes,  conspiracy theories, and misinformation vis a vis the rules/process because they know Trump has no actual defense as to the substantive allegations. He did it.

Now some are trying to fall back to well it’s not impeachable. They’re sort of distorting what happened as the Trump campaign doing opposition research. That’s all. What’s the big deal? People do it all the time. Sure it’s a little icky but that’s politics.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES using his office and official powers to withhold MILITARY AID, which aid had been deemed proper in light of the United States NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS in assisting the Ukraine in fighting against an attempted (and partially successful!) military takeover by RUSSIA, to EXTORT a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT into investigating a political rival. (Among other methods of extortion, such as official recognition of the Ukraine’s new leader by the  president of the United States).

If that’s not impeachable then fock it, let’s just take that clause right out of the Constitution.

It’s funny when Sh!tlibs act like they care about the constitution 

[Strike 5,593]

18 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Trump and his rabid allies in the house are only coming up with these gripes,  conspiracy theories, and misinformation vis a vis the rules/process because they know Trump has no actual defense as to the substantive allegations. He did it.

Now some are trying to fall back to well it’s not impeachable. They’re sort of distorting what happened as the Trump campaign doing opposition research. That’s all. What’s the big deal? People do it all the time. Sure it’s a little icky but that’s politics.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES using his office and official powers to withhold MILITARY AID, which aid had been deemed proper in light of the United States NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS in assisting the Ukraine in fighting against an attempted (and partially successful!) military takeover by RUSSIA, to EXTORT a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT into investigating a political rival. (Among other methods of extortion, such as official recognition of the Ukraine’s new leader by the  president of the United States).

If that’s not impeachable then fock it, let’s just take that clause right out of the Constitution.

I'm sure they'll be voting any minute now!!!!

[Gladiators 1,995]

Anyone got a total $ amount the left has spent thus far trying to impeach Trump?

[drobeski 3,061]

23 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Trump and his rabid allies in the house are only coming up with these gripes,  conspiracy theories, and misinformation vis a vis the rules/process because they know Trump has no actual defense as to the substantive allegations. He did it.

Now some are trying to fall back to well it’s not impeachable. They’re sort of distorting what happened as the Trump campaign doing opposition research. That’s all. What’s the big deal? People do it all the time. Sure it’s a little icky but that’s politics.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES using his office and official powers to withhold MILITARY AID, which aid had been deemed proper in light of the United States NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS in assisting the Ukraine in fighting against an attempted (and partially successful!) military takeover by RUSSIA, to EXTORT a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT into investigating a political rival. (Among other methods of extortion, such as official recognition of the Ukraine’s new leader by the  president of the United States).

If that’s not impeachable then fock it, let’s just take that clause right out of the Constitution.

Remember when schitt said he had the good on trump colluding with Russia and YOU and the bunch of retards like you believed him ? 

Good times!

[Strike 5,593]

It's sad that any American would be hoping for a sitting President to be impeached. 

[MDC 7,499]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

It's sad that any American would be hoping for a sitting President to be impeached. 

Many Geeks routinely wish for former presidents and presidential candidates to be jailed or hung for treason. Being impeached seems relatively tame by comparison.

[Herbivore 1,142]

31 minutes ago, Gladiators said:

Anyone got a total $ amount the left has spent thus far trying to impeach Trump?

somewhere under the amount spent on benghazi?

[Mr. Hand 482]

14 minutes ago, MDC said:

Many Geeks routinely wish for former presidents and presidential candidates to be jailed or hung for treason. Being impeached seems relatively tame by comparison.

Do you links to back this up? Former presidents and candidates? How many and who are they?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,515]

17 minutes ago, MDC said:

Many Geeks routinely wish for former presidents and presidential candidates to be jailed or hung for treason. Being impeached seems relatively tame by comparison.

[Baker Boy 1,703]

12 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

somewhere under the amount spent on benghazi?

Link!

[Strike 5,593]

26 minutes ago, MDC said:

Many Geeks routinely wish for former presidents and presidential candidates to be jailed or hung for treason. Being impeached seems relatively tame by comparison.

Newbie was banned and Volty apologized.  It's all good.

[Casual Observer 597]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Trump and his rabid allies in the house are only coming up with these gripes,  conspiracy theories, and misinformation vis a vis the rules/process because they know Trump has no actual defense as to the substantive allegations. He did it.

Now some are trying to fall back to well it’s not impeachable. They’re sort of distorting what happened as the Trump campaign doing opposition research. That’s all. What’s the big deal? People do it all the time. Sure it’s a little icky but that’s politics.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES using his office and official powers to withhold MILITARY AID, which aid had been deemed proper in light of the United States NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS in assisting the Ukraine in fighting against an attempted (and partially successful!) military takeover by RUSSIA, to EXTORT a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT into investigating a political rival. (Among other methods of extortion, such as official recognition of the Ukraine’s new leader by the  president of the United States).

If that’s not impeachable then fock it, let’s just take that clause right out of the Constitution.

Except that Ukraine had already begun that investigation, without any suggestion from Trump.  I think it's entirely proper for a President to withhold aid pending some guarantee of rooting out corruption, but here there are plenty of people in the gov't. who say there is no quid prop quo.  Hell, the next time a hurricane hits Puerto Rico, I wouldn't give a dime to their corrupt Governor.

Anyway, you're misleading and being dishonest again, as you always do.  We have no national security interest in the Ukraine - we used the Ukraine to strike at Russia, which is the age-old gripe of neocons, many of whose forbears were from that country.  Don't believe me, check for the Victoria Nudelman aka Victoria Nuland tapes regarding the overthrow of the Ukrainian gov't., sponsored by the U.S. and the 5 Billion in aid we gave them.

There's no opposition research here Little Buddy, there's the usual corruption and graft accompanying U.S. overthrow of a gov't., that is by now common knowledge.  One of the beneficiaries of that graft happens to be running for President.  Big deal.  Too bad for him.  Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Dems in the House changed the rules recently to call for these closed-door hearings, while Adam Schiff selectively leaks to his media allies to try and smear Trump.  This gov't. now resembles 1950's Soviet Russia than any conception of America or the United States.

[lickin_starfish 1,942]

Call the vote, Nancy!

She won't, because they want to drag this out until November of 2020. It's all theatrics.

[12th Man 884]

21 hours ago, Baker Boy said:

Yup, you sure backed a loser there, and it took you almost 3 years to recover when Trump won.

 

 

Pure derangement. 

[12th Man 884]

7 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Seriously?  You haven't seen or heard anything about this?  Just a simple google search my friend.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+above+the+law&sxsrf=ACYBGNSj10x3soz12k8si8kwsfAMNGeCLg:1571919277357&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivpJHR77TlAhURd6wKHZjTC64Q_AUIEigB&biw=1600&bih=789

So I clicked your little link. Click on a WAPO article. Saw this:

By 

Greg Sargent 

Opinion writer

 

I stopped there.  

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

4 minutes ago, 12th Man said:

So I clicked your little link. Click on a WAPO article. Saw this:

By 

Greg Sargent 

Opinion writer

 

I stopped there.  

So what?

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

Trump's lawyer said that nothing could be done to Trump if he were to shoot someone.  Basically saying Trump is above the law.  This is not opinion, it was actually said.

https://twitter.com/ErickFernandez/status/1187023407352877056?s=20

[Mr. Hand 482]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Trump's lawyer said that nothing could be done to Trump if he were to shoot someone.  Basically saying Trump is above the law.  This is not opinion, it was actually said.

https://twitter.com/ErickFernandez/status/1187023407352877056?s=20

So now the narrative is Trump is going to shoot someone? Stir that pot Iowa boy!

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

1 minute ago, Mr. Hand said:

So now the narrative is Trump is going to shoot someone? Stir that pot Iowa boy!

My God, you are confused.  I'm not sure you understand the discussion here.

[Mr. Hand 482]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

My God, you are confused.  I'm not sure you understand the discussion here.

 You are the one that posted something about Trump shooting someone. 

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

Just now, Mr. Hand said:

 You are the one that posted something about Trump shooting someone. 

The original comment I made that you quoted me on was about Trump being above the law.  This was in reference to Trump's lawyer saying that he can't be investigated, even if he were to shoot someone like Trump had claimed he could do in the past.  You wanted links so I showed you how it was all over the news by using a simple google search.  You didn't find that to be enough yet because, apparently the first thing you clicked on was an opinion piece.  I then give you a link to the actual audio of Trump's lawyer saying it and now you are acting like this is something completely random.

[Mr. Hand 482]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

The original comment I made that you quoted me on was about Trump being above the law.  This was in reference to Trump's lawyer saying that he can't be investigated, even if he were to shoot someone like Trump had claimed he could do in the past.  You wanted links so I showed you how it was all over the news by using a simple google search.  You didn't find that to be enough yet because, apparently the first thing you clicked on was an opinion piece.  I then give you a link to the actual audio of Trump's lawyer saying it and now you are acting like this is something completely random.

I never asked for links about this. Like Sho...you always need to get the last word in.

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Hand said:

I never asked for links about this. Like Sho...you always need to get the last word in.

Well sh!t, you're right.  It was 12th Man and I got you two mixed up.  Why exactly did you jump into the convo?

I didn't quote 12th Man when I posted that link so I suppose I can see why you might think that was just a random post about Trump shooting someone.

[Mr. Hand 482]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Well sh!t, you're right.  It was 12th Man and I got you two mixed up.  Why exactly did you jump into the convo?

It's a message board. HTH

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

1 minute ago, Mr. Hand said:

It's a message board. HTH

It's all straightened out now.

[drobeski 3,061]

4 hours ago, Herbivore said:

somewhere under the amount spent on benghazi?

Is that the one where our Ambassador was brutally sodomized and murdered along with 3 service men ? Where they begged for added security and that hore Hillary scumbag Barry deleted all the pertaining emails ? 

Yeah, totally not as important as hurting creepy kid touching sneaky corrupt Joe's feelings.  

You make great analogies. 

[Reality 3,121]

5 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

I'm consistent because I stick to the facts and truth., makes thing a hell of a lot easier than trying revise and spin the story every time the President lies about something new.   

That's where the naive part comes in. You should read Volty's response, he sums it up nicely. I know you take everything the left and their cohorts in the MSM says as if it were the gospel but, most of us aren't that naive.

If you can't at least admit things don't look on the up and up from Biden's perspective, there is nothing any of us can do for you. But, that's pretty much the point when it comes to you.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,144]

16 minutes ago, Reality said:

That's where the naive part comes in. You should read Volty's response, he sums it up nicely. I know you take everything the left and their cohorts in the MSM says as if it were the gospel but, most of us aren't that naive.

If you can't at least admit things don't look on the up and up from Biden's perspective, there is nothing any of us can do for you. But, that's pretty much the point when it comes to you.

@Mike Honcho saying he "sticks to the facts" is like Adam Schiff saying he has indisputable evidence on Trump/Russian collusion and pee tapes. 

[Mike Honcho 5,297]

5 hours ago, Strike said:

It's sad that any American would be hoping for a sitting President to be impeached. 

It's sadder that quite a few Americans think that they should put party ahead of country.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,144]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

It's sadder that quite a few Americans think that they should put party ahead of country.  

Yeah. Agreed.  The Dem Party/liberals are guilty of both.  Glad we could finally agree on something! 

[Frozenbeernuts 2,270]

On 9/24/2019 at 6:00 PM, avoiding injuries said:

The Democrats are enemies of the people of the United States. They’re choosing revenge for losing in 2016 over the country. 

I wouldn't call the Dems enemies of the state if Trump is potentially guilty of impeachable acts. 

[drobeski 3,061]

35 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

I wouldn't call the Dems enemies of the state if Trump is potentially guilty of impeachable acts. 

 

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

It's sadder that quite a few Americans think that they should put party ahead of country.  

Projection at its finest

[Frozenbeernuts 2,270]

4 minutes ago, drobeski said:

 

Projection at its finest

It sounds like this deserves investigating. Whether he actually deserves to be impeached remains to be seen. I am leaning toward no, and I don't want him impeached

[12th Man 884]

4 hours ago, Mr. Hand said:

I never asked for links about this. Like Sho...you always need to get the last word in.

Hawkeye is foolish like Sho but he's not Sho. I beat Sho sill y while he was here. He had me blocked. No way Hawkeye would engage me if h he were a  Sho alias. 

 

[avoiding injuries 1,595]

1 hour ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

It sounds like this deserves investigating. Whether he actually deserves to be impeached remains to be seen. I am leaning toward no, and I don't want him impeached

So I can count on you to come back when this most recent “scandal” fizzles out to admit dems are enemies of the state?

[Voltaire 5,322]

8 hours ago, Strike said:

Newbie was banned and Volty apologized.  It's all good.

It was an attempt at humor that was in bad taste. “What’s going through his mind” I’d said “Hopefully a lead slug.” I got called out on it, felt like an ass and deleted my post. After wishing death on GWB, I watch eight years of Obama hatred unfold without seeing anyone wish death on him. No one did what I had done. Then Newbie came along...

[drobeski 3,061]

1 hour ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

It sounds like this deserves investigating. Whether he actually deserves to be impeached remains to be seen. I am leaning toward no, and I don't want him impeached

Didn't read the transcript eh ?

[Intense Observer 344]

15 minutes ago, drobeski said:

Didn't read the transcript eh ?

They still don't understand that the actual transcript was released and shows no quid pro quo.

Schittforbrains and the lawfare mafia never dreamed that the transcript would be released and they could claim anything they wanted with the CIAWB Complaint. The media would provide cover and the useful idiots would take it as gospel.

Then Trump released the transcript.

They have been scrambling like rats ever since. Fabricating a second WB. Fabricating a conversation between Trump and Ukraine that never actually happened. Sending their henchmen back to Ukraine to try and get people to change their statements. Releasing selective texts to support their false narrative. Withholding testimony that supports the transcript and no qpq.

They are focked and they know it.